given the way it referred to "exotics," i thought that the article was going to argue against keeping the animals, because of poaching/trafficking/what have you.
i am rather confused--what, exactly, is the wording of the law? i doubt it's all reptiles, or even intended for most of them. to be totally honest, i feel like, given reptiles' inability to develop bonds to the same extent as mammals--that is, they are much more "wild" than domesticated animals and pets--and the danger inherent in venomous snakes and large reptiles (and also the unfortunately common habit people have of releasing their pets into the wild if they grow too large or dangerous), this isn't quite as bad as it's being made out to be. lawmakers are not herpetology experts, as you said; they have more important things on their plate than outlawing geckos and corn snakes.
you wouldn't happen to have a source that's not as...involved, would you?
I've looked, but can't find anything. It's pretty much politicians trying to expand the python ban that happened earlier this year.
One of the main problems is that the only people who really care are the people who are involved with the reptile industry, so the people who are writing articles and trying to make their voices heard are the ones that are involved because their livelihoods are at stake.
They only banned 4 species (Burmese Python, Northern and Southern African Rock Python, and the Yellow Anaconda) for interstate travel, but originally planned to ban 9. The reason they lowered it to 4 is because a loophole exists where if it's under a certain amount of economic impact, they don't have to have a congressional vote for it.
They plan on doing the other 5 the same way.
I think Burmese Pythons and African Rock Pythons should be banned in Florida, but Florida only.
There is no reason to ban them anywhere else, I live in Northern Florida, and they wouldn't even survive the winter here.
They're not banned as pets across the US, but they're not allowed to leave state lines, which meaning putting several thousand private business owners out of work because they can't get their hatchlings to reptile shows across the US. They've left people with hundreds of baby pythons and no way to sell them, and without the income, they can't feed them or their adult snakes.
It also impacts residents as well, because let's say I live in New York and I owned a Yellow Anaconda and I was moving to New Jersey, I wouldn't be able to take my snake with me without committing a felony.
Doesn't that seem like more of a reason to release a snake where it doesn't belong?
These snakes aren't as dangerous as people say, they don't even get as big in captivity as they do in the wild because if you control the food you control the size.
People don't realize that the HSUS (the ones who run those sad shelter commercials with Sarah Mclachlan) and PETA are against ALL pet ownership, and they're putting their foot in the door with exotics and want to eventually work it's way to your cats and dogs.
They pressure politicians to pass laws just to get them off of their backs, and it's sad that the general public doesn't know about it.
They watch bogus shows like Man Eaters: _____ and Swamp Wars which has been exposed to show that they plant animals in their shows.
"It's from Animal Planet, it must be true!"
I breed Ball Pythons, which are relatively small snakes, but they will be attacked sooner or later.
And I hate to admit it, but these smaller species are more destructive to the environment than the larger ones, it's just that people fear the bigger ones because they're.. bigger. Here's a video I found on the subject.
and a parody made to help spread some light on the HSUS (you know, the one that makes you want to cry they play on TV)